Perhaps the importance of her position is finally hitting home.
It’s happened before. SCOTUS picks that seemed like a no-brainer have switched ideologies once on the bench.
this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
112 points (98.3% liked)
Law
584 readers
228 users here now
Discussion about legal topics, centered around United States
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's entirely possible that Trump overreached in his pick. Thought she was way more in his camp than she really is. "I'd love to be on the Supreme Court but I'm my own person and will rule according to how I see the law."
My understanding is that this is precisely why they have lifetime appointments
a judge can turn around and piss off those who appointed them and there's little recourse, because they'll never be up for election again (similar to the nominal purpose of academic tenure).
I think it's a pretty bad system and there are a million better ways of doing things, but in this one instance the system is maybe working as (I believe it was) intended (even if she holds pretty reprehensible views in other aspects).
Not a lawyer, not a history buff, so grain of salt and all that...
I'm starting to wonder if she might be in the process of flipping a little bit. She's been in a few 5-4 minorities with the liberals.
There are other possibilities. She could be following Catholic doctrine (the real Catholic doctrine, not USCCB), which is strongly against Trump on the immigration issue.
But I think it's also possible that she's just interested in preserving the power of the judicial branch.
I'm starting to wonder if she might be in the process of flipping a little bit. She's been in a few 5-4 minorities with the liberals.
Or she could have her own opinions, which sometimes don't match the conservative agenda.
Nuance.
yes long term appointments of judges was meant to elevate them beyond politics.
Been saying for a few years, this SCOTUS is not Republican, is not partisan. They are conservative. They owe Trump nothing. And believe it or not, they've made a couple dozen rulings that would be considered liberal, woke, whatever. (I have links if anyone cares. Was so astounded I started collecting stories.) I would be remiss in my post not to mention Alito and Thomas being bought and paid for. LOL, put that in Gemini and got those names right back, even AI "gets" it. I'd take any pair of conservatives over those two, any given Sunday
Want to piss off a judge? A judge of any political stripe? Question their authority. And that's what Barrett is hammering Sauer on.
"Are you going to fucking respect circuit court rulings, or not", you little cock-sucking insect, which she didn't say, but I wish she had.
And yet they still made Trump king.
Don't try to sane wash the court that keeps overturning longstanding precedent for ideological reasons.
They owe Trump nothing.
Some are easily bribed
Means nothing unless they enforce their rulings. They have the ability, will they use it?
Props.